Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.

We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Post navigation

The QP Clip: In the weeds of the Wright-Duffy affair

Excuse me, NIck, but this unbalanced reporting has gone on for much too long!

It is true that EC allowed for Liberal MP`s to disagree with EC rules while NOT being asked to remove themselves from voting in the House while being in disagreement with EC. Let`s pull some weeds!

“OTTAWA — Three failed Liberal leadership candidates are looking to cook
up a deal with Elections Canada over outstanding debts from the 2006
contest.

Martha Hall Findlay, Joe Volpe and Hedy Fry have decided not to
appeal the Ontario Superior Court’s ruling that tossed out their request
for a two-year extension to pay off any remaining expenses.

The trio still owed a combined $294,000 for the leadership
contest won by Montreal MP Stephane Dion, according to Elections Canada
filings on Dec. 31 — the date they were supposed to be debt-free after
two previous extensions.

A fourth candidate, Ken Dryden, is in a similar predicament. “

They did take it to court. They were NOT asked to remove themselves from the voting in the House!

Case A
The Liberals you complain about were MPs in good standing when they then ran in an internal party leadership contest.
The money they owed had nothing to do with a general election against candidates from outside the party.
The extension was court ordered after EC said no.

Case B
The Harper MPs overspent in a general election and have never been MPs in good standing since as far as EC is concerned.
These MPs overspent in a contest with others who were not party members.
They are now going to court to get an extension because EC said no.

You’re not comparing apples with apples here.

EC has been consistent in it’s rulings – No in both cases.

The law will take into account the public/internal nature of this new case just as it did the previous case. The previous case was an internal matter this new case concerns an actual public election.

This is about being allowed to sit in the House while being in disagreement with EC.

Garneau, today in the House, stood up to proclaim that two CPC mps were in the House illegally because they were in disagreement with EC and had not settled their 2011 election accounts.

But when several Liberal MP`s were in court against EC over disagreements regarding EC rules, THEY were allowed to sit in the House while their court cases were ongoing against EC, and THEIR 2006 leadership accounts had NOT been complied with under EC rules.

Does Garneau now believe that those Liberals were in the House illegally THEN, when they sat in the House while their unresolved EC account was before the courts. and does Garneau believe that when those Liberals had casted a vote THEN that those votes are NOW also illegal………………………………….

Your inability to grasp reality is exasperating. Sometimes it feels like I’m trying to explain parabolic flight to my chihuahua.

EC did the same thing in both cases.

The court ruled to extend the pay back time in one case so there is no longer a problem with the Liberal MPs because the court ie the law of the land, told EC to back off.
The court has not ruled in the case of the two Harper MPs so right now they are not in good standing so are subject to action and discipline by EC. This means that Garneau has every right to question whether they should be allowed to vote on business in the House of Commons. As to what Garneau thought back then, who knows? And it is moot now because it doesn’t really matter. It also means that EC rules apply as do EC punishments and EC has no choice but to do its job.

Right now before any court ruling the two Harper MPs should not be allowed to vote in the house according to the rules. The judgement when it comes could very well change this but as of this moment they should not be voting.

Jeez Francien are you being deliberately obtuse or is this how you are in reality?

“Sometimes it feels like I’m trying to explain parabolic flight to my chihuahua.”

Shame on you! What did your chihuahua do to deserve such an invidious comparison? Please apologize to the dog immediately, and give him (or her) a treat.

mtl_bcer on June 6, 2013 at 11:33 am

Yeah, I did regret writing that and have already tried to make amends with the aforementioned canine. She did make me promise to watch my future behaviour in this area and that she’d be keeping a close eye on me.

I never knew that Chi’s were that picky given all the time they spend cleaning their feet,, but you live and learn.

But she’s getting really good at playing pocket tanks now she’s grasped projectile flight.

harebell on June 6, 2013 at 11:42 am

+1, That’s more like it!

mtl_bcer on June 6, 2013 at 11:44 am

“The Canada Elections Act calls for a $1,000 fine or a three-month jail term for unpaid expenses.“

Why did EC not bring THAT fine into action if this time around, EC has written a letter to the Speaker that action be taken against the MP`s in court with EC……………..

Why the double standard by EC

Why the double standard by the media for not reporting on such EC double standard.

OTTAWA — Former leader Stephane Dion and five other Liberal MPs have
been given two-year extensions to repay loans used to finance their 2006
campaigns for leadership of the party.

Lawyers acting for the candidates were forced to go to court last month
to apply for an extension of time to pay off their campaign debts.

A previous extension, granted by Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand,
expired at the end of last year and he was not allowed to grant another.

Elections Canada said Tuesday it had been advised that Justice Paul B.
Kane of the Ontario Superior Court last week granted MPs Dion, Maurizio
Bevilacqua, Hedy Fry, Joe Volpe, Martha Hall Findlay and Gerard Kennedy
until the end of 2011 to pay off their debts.“

What I like to know is why the Senate still kept the money given by Wright to Duffy to pay for the improperly claimed expenses? Should the senate not have returned the money and ask Duffy to pay? The way I see it is that Duffy still kept the 90K.

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.